Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The CESTAT set aside the impugned order confirming customs duty demands against the appellants for alleged undervaluation through inflated freight invoices in related party transactions. The Tribunal found the adjudicating authority erred by relying solely on cost sheets from the related shipping line without addressing the appellants' demonstrated practice of selecting lowest freight quotations from multiple shipping lines. No independent evidence established inflated freight charges or intent to evade duty. The report by the accounting firm, prepared under statutory obligations and affirming arm's length transactions, was held credible and could not be disregarded without contrary proof. Payments made during investigation were deemed under protest and subject to adjustment. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, rejecting the allegation of duty short payment and quashing the confirmed demands.
The CESTAT set aside the impugned order confirming customs duty demands against the appellants for alleged undervaluation through inflated freight invoices in related party transactions. The Tribunal found the adjudicating authority erred by relying solely on cost sheets from the related shipping line without addressing the appellants' demonstrated practice of selecting lowest freight quotations from multiple shipping lines. No independent evidence established inflated freight charges or intent to evade duty. The report by the accounting firm, prepared under statutory obligations and affirming arm's length transactions, was held credible and could not be disregarded without contrary proof. Payments made during investigation were deemed under protest and subject to adjustment. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, rejecting the allegation of duty short payment and quashing the confirmed demands.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
